Slashdot Mirror


Hundreds of Stonehenge-Like Monuments Found In The Amazon Rainforest (yahoo.com)

turkeydance quotes The Telegraph: Hundreds of ancient earthworks resembling those at Stonehenge were built in the Amazon rainforest, scientists have discovered after flying drones over the area. The findings prove for the first time that prehistoric settlers in Brazil cleared large wooded areas to create huge enclosures meaning that the 'pristine' rainforest celebrated by ecologists is actually relatively new.
The researchers believe the monuments appeared roughly 2,000 years ago -- so after Stonehenge (by about 2,500 years). "It is thought they were used only sporadically," reports the BBC, "possibly as ritual gathering places similar to the Maya pyramids of Central America, or Britain's own Stonehenge."

147 comments

  1. Not saying it was Aliens by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

    But....ALIENS.

    1. Re: Not saying it was Aliens by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Came here for this. Not disappointed.

    2. Re:Not saying it was Aliens by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Once mocked by scientists, now an accepted part of Earth's history. Except by the "deniers".
      https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ancient_astronauts
      http://www.history.com/shows/ancient-aliens

    3. Re:Not saying it was Aliens by ClickOnThis · · Score: 1

      Once mocked by scientists, now an accepted part of Earth's history. Except by the "deniers".
      https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/...
      http://www.history.com/shows/a...

      My head asplode. Because Poe's Law.

      --
      If it weren't for deadlines, nothing would be late.
    4. Re:Not saying it was Aliens by wonkey_monkey · · Score: 1

      Butt aliens?

      --
      systemd is Roko's Basilisk.
    5. Re:Not saying it was Aliens by ClickOnThis · · Score: 1

      Butt aliens?

      You mean ... Klingons?

      --
      If it weren't for deadlines, nothing would be late.
    6. Re:Not saying it was Aliens by HornWumpus · · Score: 1

      S. Gross drew some cartoons about 'butt aliens' landing on fire island. The caption was 'The natives are friendly, they fed us.'

      IIRC it was in 'National Lampoon's: Cartoons Even We Wouldn't Dare Print' (could have been 1 or 2). Though I've found the torrent of all the pooners, I haven't found those two books.

      --
      John McAfee 'It was like that time I hired that Bangkok prostitute; to do my taxes, while I fucked my accountant'
    7. Re:Not saying it was Aliens by gzuckier · · Score: 1

      Butt aliens?

      No more probes! I have nothing concealed up there that will save your dying planet!

      --
      Star Trek transporters are just 3d printers.
    8. Re:Not saying it was Aliens by gzuckier · · Score: 1

      'The natives are friendly, they fed us.'

      That could go in the "To Serve Man' direction, also.

      --
      Star Trek transporters are just 3d printers.
  2. Only the earthworks are visible by Hognoxious · · Score: 4, Insightful

    Only the earthworks are visible. Seems somebody messed up on the units for the stones.

    --
    Confucius say, "Find worm in apple - bad. Find half a worm - worse."
    1. Re:Only the earthworks are visible by TWX · · Score: 2

      If there were stones present at some point it's possible that subsequent generations found other uses for the raw material and broke them up and carted them off. Archeologists and Paleontologists could probably do the field work to support or refute this.

      Also kind of makes you wonder how quickly it would be hard to find evidence of human habitation in Europe if large portions of the continent had suffered population crashes and full abandonment during the Bronze Age. Hell, look at the way thirty years of abandonment in the Chernobyl Exclusion Zone has progressed, and that's with the presence of relatively modern materials that stand out significantly from the natural environment. Depending on the scale of the earthworks found in South America it'll be interesting to see if this revises historical population numbers.

      --
      Do not look into laser with remaining eye.
    2. Re:Only the earthworks are visible by bruce_the_loon · · Score: 5, Informative

      These structures resemble henges, which are defined as a circular earthwork with a ditch inside the earthwork. Most defensive earthworks have the raised bit inside the ditch so the defenders have higher ground while the attackers are left to scramble through the ditch and then try to climb the earthwork.

      Stonehenge is a henge with standing stones inside the ditch perimeter. It's a bad example to keep using as most people will keep thinking henges are the standing stone circle because of the name of the site.

      The Brits think the henges are ceremonial partly because of finds inside the henge and partly because it makes no defensive sense. Some chaps think it might be to keep the dead enclosed, i.e. the inside ditch keeps them from escaping and haunting the living.

      <fulldisclosure>I'm a Time Team fan</fulldisclosure>

      --
      Trying to become famous by taking photos. Visit my homepage please.
    3. Re:Only the earthworks are visible by camperdave · · Score: 2

      There's a lot of speculation of that sort on a show called Life after People. Things do deteriorate quickly if not maintained.

      --
      When our name is on the back of your car, we're behind you all the way!
    4. Re:Only the earthworks are visible by Freischutz · · Score: 2

      Only the earthworks are visible. Seems somebody messed up on the units for the stones.

      Much of what makes Stonehenge remarkable is simply the fact that is made of stone, other than that Stonehenge is not that much more special than other circular monuments in the UK and the rest of Europe. In fact there is a large number of circular monuments all over Europe that are as big or even bigger than Stonehenge. Most these circular neolithic monuments in Europe were actually wood 'henges' and there are literally hundreds of them that have been found in recent years all the way from Britain through Germany and Poland down into Austria, Switzerland, the Czech Republic, Slovakia and into the Hungary. There is no reason to doubt that these Amazonian 'henges' were made of wood. That is to say if all of these remains even were 'henges', some of these earth works might be the remains of fortified villages.

    5. Re:Only the earthworks are visible by Hylandr · · Score: 1

      Or Stonehegnge could be the remnants of the foundation for a tall structure.

      Why do all ancient stone ruins *always* have to be called some kind of temple? chances are it served a much more mundane purpose?

      --
      ~ People that think they are better than anyone else for any reason are the cause of all the strife in the world.
    6. Re:Only the earthworks are visible by HornWumpus · · Score: 1

      No. Just no. Study some engineering. Those stones are, more or less, stood up on native ground. Foundations go deeper and are contiguous.

      --
      John McAfee 'It was like that time I hired that Bangkok prostitute; to do my taxes, while I fucked my accountant'
    7. Re:Only the earthworks are visible by Hylandr · · Score: 1

      For buildings we might build yes. You know, progress and all. But some of these structures are just massive, and could very well have held a larger wooden structure above it. Point is nobody knows and a hypothesis is 'merely' an educated guess. With truth being stranger than fiction, these things really could have served any number of purposes that were *not* religion-centric.

      --
      ~ People that think they are better than anyone else for any reason are the cause of all the strife in the world.
    8. Re:Only the earthworks are visible by ClickOnThis · · Score: 2

      Only the earthworks are visible. Seems somebody messed up on the units for the stones.

      I'll just leave this here. Surprised it hasn't shown up sooner.

      --
      If it weren't for deadlines, nothing would be late.
    9. Re:Only the earthworks are visible by GerryHattrick · · Score: 1

      One hypothesis was that these (Brit) structures were seen as 'stairway to the underworld' / '...to the stars' or omphalos-like as navel of the universe, a point where the world turned inside-out. So it made sense to defend against things that might emerge if the spells worked.

    10. Re:Only the earthworks are visible by MightyYar · · Score: 1

      It could be, but people aren't simply assuming things here - they are deferring to experts who have exhaustively studied the sites. Contrarian views are very useful motivation in science, but mostly useless in amateur chat rooms. "Could" they be foundations or some other purpose? Sure, why not? Sounds like a good line of study. Without some evidence, however, it's just idle musings.

      More on-topic, look at the massive amount of resources people pour into religion... historically it is perhaps only rivaled by defense. The vast majority of surviving impressive architecture is religious or defensive in nature - think pyramids and other tombs, cathedrals, great walls, and castles. The only other impressive ancient or medieval works I can think of are a few implements of state (Colosseum and Roman stone and concrete works (Parthenon, viaducts), Asian and European palaces, canals, harbors). Once you rule out defensive structures you are limited to religion or implements of state - and these are very often closely related, if not exactly the same. It's only very recently that we've regularly created massive structures for purely secular use.

      --
      W..w..W - Willy Waterloo washes Warren Wiggins who is washing Waldo Woo.
    11. Re:Only the earthworks are visible by Hognoxious · · Score: 1

      If it was a bus station or a supermarket it's unlikely it would have be so ostentatiously and expensively constructed.

      For those who are wondering, this is probably why we find very few iron age bus stations & supermarkets (apart from the Co-Op in Barnsley).

      --
      Confucius say, "Find worm in apple - bad. Find half a worm - worse."
    12. Re:Only the earthworks are visible by Hylandr · · Score: 1

      look at the massive amount of resources people pour into religion... historically it is perhaps only rivaled by defense.

      Based on your argument all our major cities will be viewed as giant mecca's of religion. Which they clearly are not. I expect the subways would be the church of the underworld etc.

      It's only very recently that we've regularly created massive structures for purely secular use.

      Roleplay:
      5000k+ years ago we had massive structures built for purely secular purposes using 'green' technology. What would those ruins look like?

      --
      ~ People that think they are better than anyone else for any reason are the cause of all the strife in the world.
    13. Re:Only the earthworks are visible by Photonmaker · · Score: 2

      I can't believe no one caught the Spinal Tap reference here.

      Linky: https://www.youtube.com/watch?...

    14. Re:Only the earthworks are visible by Hylandr · · Score: 1

      I was thinking more along the lines as the base of something multi-storied. Who knows, I am just tired of every ancient building made of stone referred to as a temple of some kind.

      The only thing about Human's that has really changed over the millennia is how fast we can kill each other. I imagine Human nature and behaviour to be much the same 10,000 years ago as 10 years ago. There has to be room for something with a more mundane purpose that has survived through the ages.

      Of the things we have today, what does anyone imagine they would look 1,000, 5,000, 10,000 years from now?

      --
      ~ People that think they are better than anyone else for any reason are the cause of all the strife in the world.
    15. Re:Only the earthworks are visible by I'm+New+Around+Here · · Score: 1

      look at the massive amount of resources people pour into religion... historically it is perhaps only rivaled by defense.

      Based on your argument all our major cities will be viewed as giant mecca's of religion. Which they clearly are not. I expect the subways would be the church of the underworld etc.

      It's only very recently that we've regularly created massive structures for purely secular use.

      Roleplay:
      5000k+ years ago we had massive structures built for purely secular purposes using 'green' technology. What would those ruins look like?

      It would depend on which alien race helped us make temples to aliens.

      --
      If you think I voted for Trump because of this post, you're wrong. I voted for Dr. Jill Stein of the Green Party. Again.
    16. Re:Only the earthworks are visible by Hylandr · · Score: 1

      Assuming we hadn't had our own near-extinction level event in some time long past we are unaware of. It's possible, and there are certainly legends that would suggest that we have had greater technological levels in the past. It would be pure arrogance to think we are the first, and best iteration of the Human race.

      --
      ~ People that think they are better than anyone else for any reason are the cause of all the strife in the world.
    17. Re:Only the earthworks are visible by I'm+New+Around+Here · · Score: 1

      I was thinking more along the lines as the base of something multi-storied. Who knows, I am just tired of every ancient building made of stone referred to as a temple of some kind.

      The only thing about Human's that has really changed over the millennia is how fast we can kill each other. I imagine Human nature and behaviour to be much the same 10,000 years ago as 10 years ago. There has to be room for something with a more mundane purpose that has survived through the ages.

      Of course there were more mundane buildings than just temples and fortresses. But why would ancient hunters and farmers haul enormous stone blocks over many miles, just to make a really cool above-ground foundation for a discotheque?

      --
      If you think I voted for Trump because of this post, you're wrong. I voted for Dr. Jill Stein of the Green Party. Again.
    18. Re:Only the earthworks are visible by Hognoxious · · Score: 1

      There has to be room for something with a more mundane purpose that has survived through the ages.

      But they don't. What are the main survivors from medieval times? Mostly castles & cathedrals. How about Roman times? It's largely military defences & temples too. Because things like that are over-engineered to a ludicrous degree, one because if it fails you're dead, the other because building it was an act of dedication that transcends normal cost/benefit analysis.

      Of the things we have today, what does anyone imagine they would look 1,000, 5,000, 10,000 years from now?

      10,000 years is a long time - longer than recorded history - and you're being a bit disingenuous bringing it up. It's roughly twice as old as Stonehenge. At 1K I'm guessing some cathedrals would survive if they've survived this long, along with a fair few nuclear bunkers.

      --
      Confucius say, "Find worm in apple - bad. Find half a worm - worse."
    19. Re:Only the earthworks are visible by Hognoxious · · Score: 1

      For buildings that stay up, yes.

      FTFY.

      You know, progress and all. But some of these structures are just massive, and could very well have held a larger wooden structure above it.

      I'm not a structural engineer, but it seems implausible.

      For one thing, how would you secure the upper wooden part to the stone base? It might be theoretically possible, but it'd just be easier to build the whole thing as one contiguous wooden structure - you know, like every wooden fort you've ever seen or heard of.

      --
      Confucius say, "Find worm in apple - bad. Find half a worm - worse."
    20. Re:Only the earthworks are visible by angel'o'sphere · · Score: 1

      If you read the old Indian Vedas: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/ind...
      you get the impression that in ancient times a war with 'flying saucers', 'beam weapons' and 'nuclear war' heads was fought.
      But why should our ancients not have SF stories already ...

      --
      Cost free eBook I read (by iBook/Kobo/Amazon/ObookO/Gutenberg etc.): "The Green Odyssey" by Philip Jose Farmer.
    21. Re:Only the earthworks are visible by angel'o'sphere · · Score: 1

      for a discotheque?
      Why not? Probably all participants got a honour batch, or a a cool tattoo?
      Indian tribes in the south americas still have the habit to sent delegations to games and meetings/gatherings, sometimes the whole tribe goes. One reason might be 'mating rituals' as the majourity of the folk traveling with their tribe are in or just beyond puperty.

      When you live in a society where food is abundant you have to find some way to waste your time. Our ancestors or primitive tribes elsewhere, lacked technology. They where not dumb by any means, the average probably was smarter than in our times. We have more knowledge to pick from, but even simple things as the motion of stars/planets elude the average human now. Not even to talk about when and how to plant which fruit ...

      --
      Cost free eBook I read (by iBook/Kobo/Amazon/ObookO/Gutenberg etc.): "The Green Odyssey" by Philip Jose Farmer.
    22. Re:Only the earthworks are visible by Hylandr · · Score: 1

      but even simple things as the motion of stars/planets elude the average human now. Not even to talk about when and how to plant which fruit

      I wish I could say you're wrong here, but for the most point I think that has to do greatly with the abundance of distraction that's available.

      --
      ~ People that think they are better than anyone else for any reason are the cause of all the strife in the world.
    23. Re:Only the earthworks are visible by angel'o'sphere · · Score: 1

      One of my ex girl friends, not dumb per se, we separated when she was 37, did not even know that the sun rises in the east and is due south at noon and goes down in the west ....

      I looked very long very disbelieving at her when she admitted that. Then she said: no one ever told me. Then I looked at the sky and rolled my eyes.

      --
      Cost free eBook I read (by iBook/Kobo/Amazon/ObookO/Gutenberg etc.): "The Green Odyssey" by Philip Jose Farmer.
    24. Re:Only the earthworks are visible by Hylandr · · Score: 1

      That's beyond comprehension. What kind of background was she raised with?

      --
      ~ People that think they are better than anyone else for any reason are the cause of all the strife in the world.
    25. Re:Only the earthworks are visible by MightyYar · · Score: 1

      all our major cities will be viewed as giant mecca's of religion

      First of all, until very recently a "major city" was about 50,000 people. There were a few standouts, like Rome which probably had a million. Second, look at the buildings in those cities. Almost everything was made of wood or - in some places - mud. Except for the fortifications, palaces, and cathedrals... which is, of course, my thesis.

      Roleplay:
      5000k+ years ago we had massive structures built for purely secular purposes using 'green' technology. What would those ruins look like?

      I'm not sure what you are asking. What secular purpose was there for massive structures 5000 years ago? (presuming you didn't really mean 5000k :) ) 5000 years ago there were hardly any civilizations capable of building massive structures, and the ones that did exist seemed to do it for religious purposes or at the behest of the monarch, who was of course divine.

      --
      W..w..W - Willy Waterloo washes Warren Wiggins who is washing Waldo Woo.
    26. Re:Only the earthworks are visible by MightyYar · · Score: 3, Informative

      It's not arrogance at all to refuse to make suppositions without sufficient evidence. We find no refined aluminum or titanium when we dig, and yet we cover most of the planet. We find no evidence that fossil fuels were previously tapped, despite being obvious and cheap sources of energy. Nothing has been found orbiting the planet of artificial origin, despite mapping everything down to baseball size. There is no radiological evidence that would suggest any kind of nuclear testing prior to the 1940s. What possible reason would we have to suspect that we are not the most technologically advanced apes to ever inhabit the planet?

      --
      W..w..W - Willy Waterloo washes Warren Wiggins who is washing Waldo Woo.
    27. Re:Only the earthworks are visible by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      "all our major cities will be viewed as giant mecca's of religion"

      Shrines to Neoliberalism.

    28. Re:Only the earthworks are visible by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      It doesn't matter what the original purpose of Stonehenge was. Later cultures might have been unable to build such structures and thought it was the work of 'giants' turning it into a place of worship. I do know that there are a few people who use Stonehenge as a temple today. So no matter what it was originally used for, today it is a temple, and it might have been a temple for much longer than its original purpose.

    29. Re:Only the earthworks are visible by angel'o'sphere · · Score: 1

      Yes it is beyond comprehension and I was rather shocked.
      No idea what you mean with "background", she is Armenian, bourn in Turkey, immigrated to Germany with age of 4 or so, made "Abitur" here and studied at an university and went to Paris/France with age of something like 27.
      She will be soon director of one of the most vanguard fashion design schools in Germany, a branch of a school from Paris.
      Not a dumb girl (except for being so dumb to dump me :D ) ... but no clue of normal life "physics" or stuff.

      --
      Cost free eBook I read (by iBook/Kobo/Amazon/ObookO/Gutenberg etc.): "The Green Odyssey" by Philip Jose Farmer.
    30. Re:Only the earthworks are visible by phantomfive · · Score: 1

      Worth mentioning it's not just Stonehenge, they're all over the place.

      --
      "First they came for the slanderers and i said nothing."
    31. Re: Only the earthworks are visible by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      It mightve held up a temporary trellis for yearly rituals or something. But even still you would imagine at least some notches or anchor points.

    32. Re: Only the earthworks are visible by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Its called child thinking.

    33. Re: Only the earthworks are visible by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I bet she was a good fuck. The dumb crazies are the best in bed. But dump them quick before they ruin your life.

      And yes, stupid people just wreck things purposefully or not. Stupid people really are the root of all evil.

    34. Re: Only the earthworks are visible by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Hype for: http://m.imdb.com/title/tt1212428/

    35. Re:Only the earthworks are visible by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Researchers should parachute into the place and start clearing a jungle patch for installations to start the research ASAP and send nice pictures.

    36. Re:Only the earthworks are visible by gzuckier · · Score: 1

      Or Stonehegnge could be the remnants of the foundation for a tall structure.

      Why do all ancient stone ruins *always* have to be called some kind of temple? chances are it served a much more mundane purpose?

      The First Law of Archaeology. Any object, construct, or behavior, the purpose of which we cannot discern, must be religious.

      --
      Star Trek transporters are just 3d printers.
    37. Re:Only the earthworks are visible by gzuckier · · Score: 1

      look at the massive amount of resources people pour into religion... historically it is perhaps only rivaled by defense.

      Based on your argument all our major cities will be viewed as giant mecca's of religion. Which they clearly are not. I expect the subways would be the church of the underworld etc.

      It's only very recently that we've regularly created massive structures for purely secular use.

      Roleplay: 5000k+ years ago we had massive structures built for purely secular purposes using 'green' technology. What would those ruins look like?

      http://sultanaeducation.org/wp...

      --
      Star Trek transporters are just 3d printers.
    38. Re:Only the earthworks are visible by gzuckier · · Score: 1

      but even simple things as the motion of stars/planets elude the average human now. Not even to talk about when and how to plant which fruit

      I wish I could say you're wrong here, but for the most point I think that has to do greatly with the abundance of distraction that's available.

      Like the OP said, "When you live in a society where food is abundant you have to find some way to waste your time"

      --
      Star Trek transporters are just 3d printers.
    39. Re:Only the earthworks are visible by gzuckier · · Score: 1

      One of my ex girl friends, not dumb per se, we separated when she was 37, did not even know that the sun rises in the east and is due south at noon and goes down in the west ....

      I looked very long very disbelieving at her when she admitted that. Then she said: no one ever told me. Then I looked at the sky and rolled my eyes.

      Then she picked up her white cane and her dog led her away.

      --
      Star Trek transporters are just 3d printers.
    40. Re:Only the earthworks are visible by Hylandr · · Score: 1

      Absolutely brilliant Thank You!

      --
      ~ People that think they are better than anyone else for any reason are the cause of all the strife in the world.
    41. Re:Only the earthworks are visible by Hognoxious · · Score: 1

      Clearly the denizens of the golden age were houseproud and therefore (unlike the current bunch of scabby monkeys) tidied up after themselves.

      --
      Confucius say, "Find worm in apple - bad. Find half a worm - worse."
    42. Re:Only the earthworks are visible by CommanderRyalis · · Score: 1

      I was just thinking this, They could be the skeleton of some large Tepee or Yurt-like building, maybe like a great hall or something.

    43. Re:Only the earthworks are visible by RockDoctor · · Score: 1
      Taking a walk around any of the hundreds of stone circles in Britain, or the West Atlantic coast (stretches from Shetland to Cadiz) cultural area will soon disabuse you of the idea that these things can disappear in just a few thousands of years. However, to steal a joke from a 1950s satire about 1950s excavations near Stonehnge itself, "We used to have a Woodhenge here, but it rotted." The "wooden henge" in question (Durrington Walls) was contemporary with Stonehenge, but used multi-metre diameter posts (i.e. whole tree trunks) in place of stones. The posts were unknown until excavated in he 1950s (the ditch-inside-bank henge remained though, being the "Walls" of the site's name.

      It is hypothesised ("hypothesised" !) that Eastern England had as many henges with wooden posts as SW England and Scotland had aberrant ones using stone posts - because E England didn't have adequate resources of strong enough stone. Certainly, henge structures have been documented without the stones, but few have been excavated since the discovery of the "post monument" at Durrington Walls, with the precision of search necessary to find 4000 year-old post holes. Having excavated such mark myself, it takes time (if I do another, I'll be considerably faster ; it takes experience). It also takes money. The money isn't there - if such a structure is found on an archaeological investigation prior to starting development work, generally the developer shuts the project down and sells the land because they don't want to get involved in years of expensive investigation before getting permission to proceed with destructive construction. So evidence for or against the hypothesis is in short supply - no one is willing to spend the money to answer the question.

      --
      Birds are not dinosaur descendants;birds are dinosaurs, for all useful meanings of "birds", "are" and "dinosaurs"
    44. Re:Only the earthworks are visible by RockDoctor · · Score: 1

      There's a lot of speculation of that sort

      I thought this was a nerd's site. We need evidence, not speculation.

      (I have spent weeks as an unpaid volunteer on archaeological digs. Check for the presence of glass houses before throwing stones.)

      --
      Birds are not dinosaur descendants;birds are dinosaurs, for all useful meanings of "birds", "are" and "dinosaurs"
    45. Re:Only the earthworks are visible by RockDoctor · · Score: 1

      The Brits think the henges are ceremonial partly because of finds inside the henge and partly because it makes no defensive sense.

      Also, typical henges have wide openings at two (sometimes four) points, with an unexcavated section of the line of the ditch and no bank. They were built without defensive structures. (Do casual reader realise that a typical henge ditch was cut 3 to 4 metres into the bedrock and the spoil piled up onto the surrounding bedrock to form the outer bank.) This is in contrast to the entrance structures around "hill forts" where the way over an outer ditch then turns and runs parallel to the bank above for 10s of metres before turning to pass through the bank. Thus an attacker has to turn a right-angle then progress for some distance under a hail of projectile fire (slingshot stones, arrows) from the defenders, then turn another right angle to attack the next gate.

      Once you've walked the ground, you see why henges are not considered to be defensive structures. [fulldisclosure]I'm a Time Team fan[/fulldisclosure] Me too, and I feel sure you'll have walked the ground too.

      --
      Birds are not dinosaur descendants;birds are dinosaurs, for all useful meanings of "birds", "are" and "dinosaurs"
    46. Re:Only the earthworks are visible by RockDoctor · · Score: 1
      Hognoxious touches on this downthread.

      Or Stonehenge could be the remnants of the foundation for a tall structure.

      No. Or more precisely, it couldn't be any "building" more than a small fraction of the weight of the stones themselves.

      The stones of Stonehenge (and indeed, any of the other megalithic structures) are not just placed in holes dug into the soil. The soil is rarely even a metre thick on the Chalk downlands. This is not enough to support the weight of the stones, or to prevent them from tipping over. Don't look for counteracting forces from the lintel stones of the "trilithons" - the mortise and tenon joints don't mae closely enough to provide appreciable lateral forces. Instead, the stones are all (lintels excepted) set into sockets cut a metre or more deep into the bedrock (dug : the antler picks, carbon-datable have been found in some of the sockets, giving an earliest possible date for the setting of that stone into that socket) ; in the bottom of those sockets the chalk has been crushed to powder by the pressure of 8-10m of stone above it (I'm not particularly strong ; I can crush Chalk bare-handed ; it's not strong).

      If you hypothesise another storey of trilithons above the current ring, then during the erection the underlaying ring of stones would have settled tens of centimetres (possibly a full half-metre) into the ground. Try building on top of a foundation that shifts that badly. The approximately contemporary pyramids of Seferu are a series of failure of precisely this sort, of having inadequate foundations for the weight of the higher levels of the construction. The Bent Pyramid is a terribly instructive example.

      Technically, you might just get away with a tent-like structure, arguably a "building", of extremely long, floppy poles resting on the trilithon lintels to roof it. But try putting a second floor in on top of the lintels and the sag would put centrifugal loads on the trilithons and ... tumbledown Stonehenge.

      You really need to bring a structural engineer in if you want to make this idea fly further than the departmental coffee break. And I don't think you're going find it works at all. You're sure as hell going to struggle to roof it. (Practically every person involved in building Stonehenge would have built one or several wooden roundhouses in their lives - for their family, or for their extended family - and they'd have known how strong the forces on the poles and lintels of those structures are. Build roundhouse for yourself, then reconsider your idea. With numbers.

      Also - don't forget that Stonehenge is a wildly aberrant and extremely late example of the "stone circle and megalith monuments" West Atlantic culture. I cannot think of another example of a trilithon - not one - in Britain.

      --
      Birds are not dinosaur descendants;birds are dinosaurs, for all useful meanings of "birds", "are" and "dinosaurs"
    47. Re:Only the earthworks are visible by RockDoctor · · Score: 1

      See my reply to GP about the observed foundations of Stonehenge.

      --
      Birds are not dinosaur descendants;birds are dinosaurs, for all useful meanings of "birds", "are" and "dinosaurs"
    48. Re:Only the earthworks are visible by RockDoctor · · Score: 1

      With truth being stranger than fiction, these things really could have served any number of purposes that were *not* religion-centric.

      Such as?

      Also, why is Stonehenge (but nothing else) built on much the same plan as a contemporary roundhouse? While the hundreds of other stone circles hardly even bear comparison with the foundations of a wigwam.

      --
      Birds are not dinosaur descendants;birds are dinosaurs, for all useful meanings of "birds", "are" and "dinosaurs"
    49. Re:Only the earthworks are visible by RockDoctor · · Score: 1

      Roleplay:
      5000k+ years ago we

      By "we", do you mean the last common ancestors of us and chimpanzees, or do you men anatomically modern humans?

      I suspect you mean 5kyr or 0.005Myr.

      --
      Birds are not dinosaur descendants;birds are dinosaurs, for all useful meanings of "birds", "are" and "dinosaurs"
    50. Re:Only the earthworks are visible by RockDoctor · · Score: 1

      But why would ancient hunters and farmers haul enormous stone blocks over many miles, just to make a really cool above-ground foundation for a discotheque?

      The big stones 10-40 Mg) at Stonehenge were brought from the Marlborough Downs, about 20 miles away over hill and dale.

      You're probably thinking of the "bluestones", brought from the Prescili Mountains of Wales about 190km to the WNW. Average weight 1-2Mg. Big difference.

      --
      Birds are not dinosaur descendants;birds are dinosaurs, for all useful meanings of "birds", "are" and "dinosaurs"
    51. Re:Only the earthworks are visible by RockDoctor · · Score: 1
      This hypothesis predicts the presence of substantial post holes at (calculable) intervals around the inner edge of the ditch, far enough in that the spreading loads of the weight of the structure didn't push the poles radially into the ditch. (Remember "henge" = bank outside ditch ; "fortification" = bank inside ditch ; these are henges.)

      I predict that any post holes found will be nearly vertical and not at an angle that would close the roof in the necessary radius given the canopy hight in nearby undisturbed forest.

      When the sites are put to the spade, we'll find out who is right. I'd put my money on me, unsurprisingly.

      --
      Birds are not dinosaur descendants;birds are dinosaurs, for all useful meanings of "birds", "are" and "dinosaurs"
  3. "pristine' rainforest celebrated by ecologists" by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

    Which ecologists, specifically, are celebrating this? Please be specific and cite names.

    1. Re:"pristine' rainforest celebrated by ecologists" by MightyMartian · · Score: 3, Insightful

      Translation: I try to minimize the qualifications of people who say things I don't like to hear.

      --
      The world's burning. Moped Jesus spotted on I50. Details at 11.
    2. Re:"pristine' rainforest celebrated by ecologists" by NatasRevol · · Score: 2

      shocking that some coder dudebro doesn't know what actual scientists are.

      --
      There are two types of people in the world: Those who crave closure
    3. Re:"pristine' rainforest celebrated by ecologists" by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      Also I don't see how even hundreds of these monuments could make the *whole* Amazon rainforest less pristine... But because the FA does not define what was "the area" they surveyed, it's difficult to discuss this...

    4. Re:"pristine' rainforest celebrated by ecologists" by Cmdln+Daco · · Score: 1

      A lot of people haven't even read Kuhn, let alone anything more modern that would help them understand what science is.

      And by that, I mean on the whole spectrum of the stupid bird called politics. Both big flapping wings.

    5. Re:"pristine' rainforest celebrated by ecologists" by rubycodez · · Score: 1

      Actual scientists would be educated in subject and have degrees not containing either of those words; those words could mean a hippie who is interested or an activist.

    6. Re:"pristine' rainforest celebrated by ecologists" by rubycodez · · Score: 1

      An activist or interested person could use those words about themselves and be completely unqualified. Those words do not in themselves imply qualification.

    7. Re:"pristine' rainforest celebrated by ecologists" by NatasRevol · · Score: 1

      You should try googling 'ecologist' or 'climatologist', coder dudebro. Smarten the fuck up.

      Actual scientists would be educated in subject and have degrees not containing either of those words;those words could mean a hippie who is interested or an activist.

      But then again, maybe you can't smarten the fuck up.

      --
      There are two types of people in the world: Those who crave closure
    8. Re:"pristine' rainforest celebrated by ecologists" by gzuckier · · Score: 1

      Also I don't see how even hundreds of these monuments could make the *whole* Amazon rainforest less pristine... But because the FA does not define what was "the area" they surveyed, it's difficult to discuss this...

      Yeah; if these items had made a significant dent in the rainforest's total area, chances are we'd have noticed them by now, seems to me.

      --
      Star Trek transporters are just 3d printers.
    9. Re:"pristine' rainforest celebrated by ecologists" by gzuckier · · Score: 1

      Actual scientists would be educated in subject and have degrees not containing either of those words; those words could mean a hippie who is interested or an activist.

      Not necessarily. http://colleges.startclass.com...

      --
      Star Trek transporters are just 3d printers.
    10. Re:"pristine' rainforest celebrated by ecologists" by david_thornley · · Score: 1

      The most painful I ever read was a brochure on what to do in state parks (or some such thing). It said "Be an ecologist and don't urinate in the lake." I thought there were more qualifications than that.

      --
      "When you have eliminated the unacceptable, whatever is left, however improbable, must be the truthiness" - Holmes
    11. Re:"pristine' rainforest celebrated by ecologists" by RockDoctor · · Score: 1

      But because the FA does not define what was "the area" they surveyed, it's difficult to discuss this...

      Read the fucking paper , not the fucking cited articles, which are crap (as per normal). Page 2, the section entitled "study area" and Figure 1 (A, B, and C) on page 3.

      --
      Birds are not dinosaur descendants;birds are dinosaurs, for all useful meanings of "birds", "are" and "dinosaurs"
  4. Re: "pristine' rainforest celebrated by ecologists by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    You.

  5. This is Spinal Tap by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Stonehenge! Where the demons dwell
    Where the banshees live and they do live well

  6. Are they 18" or 18' tall? by jpellino · · Score: 1

    If the former then we already know who designed them...

    --
    "Win treats sysadmins better than users. Mac treats users better than sysadmins. Linux treats everyone like sysadmins."
    1. Re:Are they 18" or 18' tall? by Areyoukiddingme · · Score: 1

      If the former then we already know who designed them...

      Smurfs? Gnomes? Fairies? Donald Trump? ('cause, you know, tiny hands...)

      *ba-dum* *tshhhh*

      Thank you, try the veal.

    2. Re:Are they 18" or 18' tall? by freeze128 · · Score: 1

      Spinal Tap.

    3. Re:Are they 18" or 18' tall? by kencurry · · Score: 1

      If the former then we already know who designed them...

      We know that it wasn't Ian. He was given a napkin. Whether or not Nigel knew the difference between feet and inches was not his problem.

      --
      sigs are for losers (except to point out that sigs are for losers)
    4. Re:Are they 18" or 18' tall? by gzuckier · · Score: 1

      If the former then we already know who designed them...

      We know that it wasn't Ian. He was given a napkin. Whether or not Nigel knew the difference between feet and inches was not his problem.

      Went on to work at NASA. http://articles.latimes.com/19...

      --
      Star Trek transporters are just 3d printers.
  7. Idiot ecologists! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    That dumb rainforest is only 2000 years old! Who cares if it is getting chopped down.

  8. The educated left strikes again by Pinky's+Brain · · Score: 1, Insightful

    "It should instead serve to highlight the ingenuity of past subsistence regimes that did not lead to forest degradation, and the importance of indigenous knowledge for finding more sustainable land-use alternatives”.

    Brazilian's current population is larger than it was then and the standard of living they aspire to is higher. Jennifer Watling begrudging Brazilian's use of their natural resource to work themselves up, while living in Europe which our ancestors deforested long ago is retarded.

    They don't wish to live as subsistence farmers did 2000 years ago.

    1. Re:The educated left strikes again by Mashiki · · Score: 1, Insightful

      It's the "noble savage" narrative. You see that a lot with regards to natives here in North America too. People like to pretend that they didn't engage in genocide, mass-rape, mass-slavery, clear cutting of forests, clear-plains burning, mass-murder of native species(note names like smashed in head buffalo jump and so on).

      --
      Om, nomnomnom...
    2. Re:The educated left strikes again by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Absolutely hilarious.
      Having actually grown up in that region I can tell you that in school they taught us all about the "subsistence regimes that did not lead to forest degradation", like clear cutting, burning and moving their fields every few years.
      And don't forget fishing by literally just poisoning the whole river.
      The only reason there was no great impact is because they numbered in the thousands rather than millions.

    3. Re:The educated left strikes again by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      People like to pretend that they didn't engage in genocide, mass-rape, mass-slavery, clear cutting of forests, clear-plains burning, mass-murder of native species.

      But, I didn't engage in any of those. Don't blame those things on people that never did those things. Sure, ancestors of those you blame may have participated in those things, but I and no one I know of has done so themselves. This is akin to white guilt going on in American society today. Sure, the country was founded by slave owners, but no one in America owns slaves anymore, nor have they since the 1800s. All we have are stories from history, that no one has actually participated in for their entire lives.

    4. Re:The educated left strikes again by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The guys that are burning down the rainforest are pretty much living like 2000 years ago at least as far as quality of life. Perhaps less as they have a poorer social environment.

          But back to reality. Deforestation is not the same as converting woodland to farmland. A considerable amount of "farmland" in Europe is actually wooded. Deforestation is complete scouring by fire or by chopping for fuel. Real deforestation results in poverty, flooding, drought and societal collapse. The removal of the trees entirely removes a water sink so floods are drastic, erosion is extensive, and the soil has less water retention so drought is more prevalent. In Europe there was a strict control of the harvesting of trees. Nobles had lumber rights. Peasants could only collect fallen branches or coppiced wood from managed areas. This is a far cry from what Brazil is doing. The rainforest is also a very different environment. Removing the tree canopy results in quick soil loss. The soil there is basically a very temporary nutrient bank. Nearly all nutrition is already in the form of living things. The loss of soil in the rainforest deals a blow to an already available-nutrient poor system.

      The burning down of rainforest is not a great wealth generator for Brazil. Brazil does already have established industry and means for growth. The burning down of the rainforest is done by people at the margin getting only subsistence in return for having a huge impact on the environment.

    5. Re:The educated left strikes again by Mashiki · · Score: 1

      But, I didn't engage in any of those. Don't blame those things on people that never did those things.

      Not talking about that. Rather the article(and author) painting a "glowing picture of ye olde primitive days before whitey" and so on. Don't forget that the media and progressives like to romanticize the whole "noble savage" thing. The reality is people are shitty, and people do shitty things, and people do shitty things to each other. Trying to paint a history in the past like the author did with "subsistence" bullshit is nothing but bullshit. This isn't an isolated case, you can even see revisionist bullshit trying to creep into stuff like hadrian's wall, where people try to paint stories about how African's are a core segment of British History and so on(cuz Romans had legions from Africa, thus there were absolutely 100% Africans in Britain and that makes it true). That in itself is nothing but someones historical fap-fantasy to show how diverse and progressive they are.

      --
      Om, nomnomnom...
    6. Re:The educated left strikes again by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I live in a farmland region. Whenever a farmer doesn't use is land to farm it only takes a couple of years to see the first young trees pop out of the bushes. When Europe was hit by the plague, some regions lost up to 2/3 of the population. In just a decade former farm land turned into a young forest because the land was no longer needed. It's probably from this time that some fairy tales about wolves living in houses originate. Even wolves prefer to live in an abandoned house. If people discovered an abandoned house in the forest, the chance was high a few wolves or even a bear were living there.

    7. Re:The educated left strikes again by Hognoxious · · Score: 1

      There's evidence that some moorish cavalry were stationed in Britian. It's unremarkable as stationing auxiliary units a long way from their homeland was a standard practice to discourage desertion.

      They're totally blowing it out of all proportion though.

      --
      Confucius say, "Find worm in apple - bad. Find half a worm - worse."
    8. Re: The educated left strikes again by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Or Rosie O'Donnell. As long as its close to a buffet.

  9. Knowledge about the age of the rainforest is known by Hasaf · · Score: 2

    The book 1492: The Year the World Began, by Felipe Fernández-Armesto, is not a new book. However, it goes into detail about the not so ancient American civilizations. It does promote the crowded Americas theory; which is gaining prominence. Essentially, the records of the first explorers and settlers is very different from the Americas seen by the large waves of explorers and settlers, only a few years later.

  10. Not new proof of settlement by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Interesting

    Terra preta has been found along the Amazon over wide areas. This manmade soil type is evidence of not just occasional occupation but regular long term occupation. So these new findings don't really newly establish that there were settlements. The soil has already done this.

    1. Re:Not new proof of settlement by careysub · · Score: 1

      Very true.

      This is only one example of a long series of discoveries over the last 40 years. An extensive system of earth works, causeways, and canals have been found along the Xingu river (an Amazon tributary). Large sections of jungle have turned out to be fruit tree orchards that over-grew with forest (which would have happened quite quickly once left untended). The entire Amazonian basin itself was virtually unknown to European civilization until the 20th Century - for most of that time it was outside of the control of colonial and later Brazilian government, being instead controlled by societies of Indians and escaped slaves. Societies of many tens of thousands of Indians, like the Yanomamo, only started being studied by westerners starting in the 1950s and to this day live in areas outside of state administrative control. Discoveries like this are being made all over the Amazonian basin, now that westerners are actually examining it.

      --
      Starships were meant to fly, Hands up and touch the sky - Nicky Minaj
  11. Re:Knowledge about the age of the rainforest is kn by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I'm curious of what explains this difference of views? Where the local population decimated by new diseases? By the invaders?

  12. Stonehenge, without the stones? by 140Mandak262Jamuna · · Score: 5, Informative
    They found what they call geoglyphs. Circular earthworks and with a ditch around them. Some places two level deep ditches and earthworks. But so far there is no evidence there was a stone structures, especially the classic a lintel propped up on top of two stone pillars is not found. It is the structures that were stunning and their alignment with equinoxes and solstices that make them very special.

    Earth work and ditches would have been the earliest form of defenses. Let us not belittle the discovery. These earthworks tell us a lot about early settlers in the Amazon region. Also they discovered agriculture late. Eincorn wheat was domesticated in the Levant 11000 years ago, rice in China 9000 years ago. Corn was domesticated in South America just 3000 or 4000 years ago. Domestication of crops correlates with sedentism, and a transition from hunter/gatherer to farmer. We remember that transition in the New World as the story of Cain (farmer) and Abel (hunter). We need to learn the transition in the New World from these clues. So the findings are very very significant.

    It is already a great and significant find. Comparing it to stonehenge is counterproductive. Stonehenge was 5000 years after domestication of crops in the New World. These geoglyphs seem to be concurrent with the domestication of corn. It is unfair to compare geoglyphs with stonehenge.

    --
    sed -e 's/Chuck Norris/Rajnikant/g' joke > fact
    1. Re:Stonehenge, without the stones? by PopeRatzo · · Score: 4, Informative

      It is the structures that were stunning and their alignment with equinoxes and solstices that make them very special.

      Earthworks can definitely be astronomically aligned. And I don't know if you've ever visited any, but they are also quite stunning.

      http://www.dispatch.com/conten...

      https://advancedtrainingassoci...

      --
      You are welcome on my lawn.
    2. Re:Stonehenge, without the stones? by HornWumpus · · Score: 1

      Statistically speaking, Stonehenge has _fewer_ astronomical alignments then would be expected by chance.

      --
      John McAfee 'It was like that time I hired that Bangkok prostitute; to do my taxes, while I fucked my accountant'
    3. Re:Stonehenge, without the stones? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Life isn't fair.

    4. Re:Stonehenge, without the stones? by PopeRatzo · · Score: 1

      Statistically speaking, Stonehenge has _fewer_ astronomical alignments then would be expected by chance.

      I'm not sure, but I thought that was kind of the point. It's not how many times the stars (or the Sun) align with Stonehenge, it's when they do, and with which heavenly bodies they align with.

      I also don't know what to think about the claim that a number of these structures align closely with Orion, but I guess some people are persuaded. For now, I'm going with, "aliens did it".

      --
      You are welcome on my lawn.
    5. Re:Stonehenge, without the stones? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You sir, are a fucking idiot. First corn was domesticated in the Valley of Anahuac, which is in Meso America, North America.
      Also, domesticated corn starch has been recorded in Meso American settlements dating at least 9,000 years BP and it is suspected that it might have been farmed for at least 1,000 prior to that time based on genetic drift in domesticated corn in relation to the original wild variety teosinte.

    6. Re:Stonehenge, without the stones? by phantomfive · · Score: 1

      Civilization is old. The cultures lasted for centuries, developing in complexity, myths and legends. There is evidence that humans were tracking the moon 30,000 years ago. It's hard to know for sure from those ancient artifacts, but certainly by the time writing was invented 5000 years ago, we can read that humans long before had begun tracking the moon and looked at the stars.

      --
      "First they came for the slanderers and i said nothing."
    7. Re:Stonehenge, without the stones? by ytene · · Score: 1

      One observation to make would be that if the discoveries in the Amazon were shown to align with lunar, solar or stellar events, then this would have a remarkable implication on the environmental conditions of that location when they were constructed.

      Stonehenge was constructed on a plain that provided a sufficiently clear view of the horizon during key dates [i.e. the winter solstice] to allow the group that constructed it to implement some very precise alignments. In order for the Amazon constructs to exhibit similar properties, then it rather suggests that the builders there had an equivalent degree of visibility [or, in the alternate, a means to replicate it - such as some method of accurately reflecting observations taken a treetop height down to the ground - for example with the aid of an accurate compass of some kind].

      Bottom line is that any form of astronomical alignment would be significant. The closest I have read to anything such as this came from a series of temples and structures located in the far east, in which the temples of Angkor Wat were shown to have correspondence with the constellation of Draco. More details here:-

      http://www.earthportals.com/Po...

      However, even though Angkor Wat presents plenty of evidence to suggest that it has been constructed to represent Draco, I don't believe that it includes alignment with horizon-level astronomical events [which would require land-clearance on an unprecedented scale.

      It will be interesting to follow the events as they happen, to better understand what can be scientifically proven. I would not be surprised if there were found to be "local" representations of astronomical constellations, but very surprised if they were accurately aligned with horizon-level events.

    8. Re: Stonehenge, without the stones? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      It wouldn't be that shocking would it ? It's one of the most obvious sets of stars in the sky. Even if you don't know constellations.

      I bet most people would point to orions belt if they were asked what they thought might be a constellation and they had no idea.

      And that W one.

    9. Re: Stonehenge, without the stones? by PopeRatzo · · Score: 1

      It wouldn't be that shocking would it ? It's one of the most obvious sets of stars in the sky. Even if you don't know constellations.

      You bring up an interesting point. Yes, Orion is a recognizable constellation, but think about the kind of advanced surveying and measuring techniques it would take to replicate the constellation with gigantic structures, as some claim was done with the pyramids at Giza.

      A further question is, "why go through all the trouble?"

      https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/...

      --
      You are welcome on my lawn.
    10. Re:Stonehenge, without the stones? by Hognoxious · · Score: 1

      Statistically speaking, Stonehenge has _fewer_ astronomical alignments then would be expected by chance.

      It's aligned with sunrise in midsummer and sunset in midwinter. That's approximately one more than you'd get if you scattered a load of rocks at random.

      --
      Confucius say, "Find worm in apple - bad. Find half a worm - worse."
    11. Re:Stonehenge, without the stones? by RockDoctor · · Score: 1

      But so far there is no evidence there was a stone structures, especially the classic a lintel propped up on top of two stone pillars is not found.

      Your "classic lintel structure" is present at approximately 0.1% of the megalithic sites in Britain, and probably lower in Europe as a whole. It is in fact an extremely rare construct.

      --
      Birds are not dinosaur descendants;birds are dinosaurs, for all useful meanings of "birds", "are" and "dinosaurs"
    12. Re:Stonehenge, without the stones? by RockDoctor · · Score: 1

      the temples of Angkor Wat were shown to have correspondence with the constellation of Draco.

      Since we know the construction date of Angkor Wat fairly well (1113 to 1175 for most of the buildings), this would predict that the constellations of the time recognised by the people of the time in the area included something substantially resembling what we call "Draco".

      Oh it's a Graham Hancock book-selling idea. Enough said. Bring something useful to the table.

      --
      Birds are not dinosaur descendants;birds are dinosaurs, for all useful meanings of "birds", "are" and "dinosaurs"
  13. Ritual gathering places, indeed by Provocateur · · Score: 3, Funny

    At certain hours that were preannounced through the week, the local townspeople would gather round these so-called meeting places and show off the tinier stones and rocks that they have collected prior to their arrival at the area. When the warning horn has been sounded, the townsfolk would grab as many of these rocks as they can in their fists, and await the first of the drones. As soon as the first one is spotted, the populace would start casting their rocks and stones, without giving a damn about gravity's tug and its sometimes painful consequences. Not many of these drones returned, nor have any been spotted since.

    --
    WARNING: Smartphones have side effects--most of them undocumented.
    1. Re: Ritual gathering places, indeed by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Sure , kill the drones. So they don't film you ass fucking your daughter. Only you want to film her supple breasts covered in feces. We understand your dislike for drones. But you need to stop the child rape you sick Muslim refugee.

    2. Re: Ritual gathering places, indeed by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Oooh, look Martha, so much anger, so much vitriol

      Don't hold back, now. Tell us how you really feel.

  14. Not pristine? Baloney! by duckintheface · · Score: 5, Insightful

    The article states that " the 'pristine' rainforest celebrated by ecologists is actually relatively new." The discovery shows nothing of the sort. This must have been funded by an oil company. Only a tiny fraction of the rainforest was cut and for only a relatively short time. As soon as the use of the sites stopped,the surrounding pristine rainforest reclaimed the sites. This was not a distrubance of biological significance.

    --
    "He took a duck in the face at 250 knots." -- William Gibson, Pattern Recognition
    1. Re: Not pristine? Baloney! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      I know I know /.

      But.... if you read the article they explain that no one is claiming this is anything like modern deforestation. Only that prehistoric meso-Americans were present, used the area at least occasionally for possibly ritual purposes (including creating clearings), and the idea of the rainforests being untouched is inaccurate.

    2. Re: Not pristine? Baloney! by duckintheface · · Score: 1, Insightful

      "Rainforests not untouched" and "pristine rainforest is new" are not the same thing at all. When we say the rainforest is pristine, that is really a statement about the biology being in its native state, as it was for millions of years. There is no reason to think that the rainforest scanned by drones is biologically different from that long-term rainforest biology due to these small, short term clearings.

      The reason it matters is that development interests would like to devalue the rainforest in public perception so they can justify cutting it down for profit.

      --
      "He took a duck in the face at 250 knots." -- William Gibson, Pattern Recognition
    3. Re:Not pristine? Baloney! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Did you read 1491?

    4. Re:Not pristine? Baloney! by Mr+D+from+63 · · Score: 1

      They also don't show any Stonehenge like sculptures. Only circles in the ground.

    5. Re:Not pristine? Baloney! by MatthiasF · · Score: 1

      The discovery reinforces earlier discoveries from last year about civilizations that groomed the rainforests and lived in the regions for thousands of years before Columbus arrived (with diseases) that wiped them out.

      http://www.livescience.com/516...

    6. Re: Not pristine? Baloney! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      (and genocide)

    7. Re: Not pristine? Baloney! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      take a deep breath you fucknard.

    8. Re:Not pristine? Baloney! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      No, but I watched 1941.

    9. Re: Not pristine? Baloney! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Exactly.

      That retarded sentence makes me want to find a better source.

    10. Re: Not pristine? Baloney! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Brought to you by the clean air act and the EPA.

      YOU'RE WELCOME

  15. Re:Knowledge about the age of the rainforest is kn by Hasaf · · Score: 5, Interesting

    The assumption that he puts forth is that between the first explorers, and the large wave that followed later, there was a massive death rate due to the introductions of Western diseases. This large die-off was not seen or recorded, by Westerners, because the bulk of it occurred between the exploration stages.

    He discusses many of the records of the second wave of explorers, they wrote of well tended, but empty, forests and fruit plantations. Many of their observations reflected that there was a recent, and large population; yet they were not seeing that large population. here is the wikipedia summary https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/...

    The, essential, anarchy seen by later explorers, and settlers as not a fair look at how the Americas had been. What those of the later stages were seeing was the result of a societal collapse to below the levels need for continuation.

    To put this in geek terms, imagine that you arrived on earth after the zombie apocalypse, your assumptions would be different than they would be if you arrived today.

  16. Wrong name! by Gravis+Zero · · Score: 1

    The surrounding area is completely entrenched with plants from the Cannabis genus. This is clearly Stonedhenge.

    No, not really. Didn't you RTFA? Ha! I'm a kidder, we know you didn't. ;)

    --
    Anons need not reply. Questions end with a question mark.
  17. Joke's on us by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Stonehenge, and the geoglyphs from the Amazon are just ancient penis jokes.

  18. Ritual Gathering Ceremony Footage by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

    The Druids' ritual gathering ceremony has finally been recreated and captured in this dramatic reenactment.

  19. Amazon Rainforest? by GeekWithAKnife · · Score: 1


    Probably part of the 2017 portfolio expansion.

    I'm thinking it's like distributed RDM for DynamoDB instance...anyone?

    --
    A 'singular oddity' is an event that cannot be explained and only happens when you are alone.
  20. Re:Knowledge about the age of the rainforest is kn by mrclevesque · · Score: 1

    I meant to +1 but slipped and clicked -1

  21. Re:Knowledge about the age of the rainforest is kn by HornWumpus · · Score: 2

    Just for reference, population estimates for all of Europe (where it hasn't been inflated by agendas) at the dawn of the bronze age was about 100,000. Estimates of 10s of millions of natives living in the Americas is simply politicised nonsense. The land couldn't support that many people at their technology level.

    This whole thing is driven by the scammy nature of most early American colonization, explorers claimed 'streets of gold' to raise funds in Europe. Now dumb people take _all_ these claims on face value to claim 40 million natives had lived in the Americas. before smallpox killed them. It's just hippy mythology.

    --
    John McAfee 'It was like that time I hired that Bangkok prostitute; to do my taxes, while I fucked my accountant'
  22. JUST IN: Ancient manmade ditches in the ground ... by Qbertino · · Score: 0

    ... look just like other ancient manmade ditches in the ground on the other side of the planet!

      Gee wizz!

    --
    We suffer more in our imagination than in reality. - Seneca
  23. weasel words detected by Uberbah · · Score: 1

    The findings prove for the first time that prehistoric settlers in Brazil cleared large wooded areas to create huge enclosures meaning that the 'pristine' rainforest celebrated by ecologists is actually relatively new.

    And what percentage of the rainforest was cleared to build these structures? Obviously not much or else they wouldn't have needed drones to find them. Seems the writer is using a definition of pristine that means "completely and utterly untouched by human hands anywhere at any time", because reasons.

    1. Re:weasel words detected by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Well, we do know that half the species (the slow ones) were hunted to extinction by the "indians" so they must have had some effect on the environment.

  24. Re:Knowledge about the age of the rainforest is kn by Carewolf · · Score: 1

    Just for reference, population estimates for all of Europe (where it hasn't been inflated by agendas) at the dawn of the bronze age was about 100,000. Estimates of 10s of millions of natives living in the Americas is simply politicised nonsense. The land couldn't support that many people at their technology level.

    Which bronze age? Antique Europe had millions of people, and while antiquity was iron age at its height, it started in the bronze age and "only" spanned a couple of hundred years.

  25. Re:Knowledge about the age of the rainforest is kn by angel'o'sphere · · Score: 1

    Who is the bigger idiot? The one who wrote this
    "... dawn of the bronze age was about 100,000"
    into a history book, or the one who is so dumb to believe it?

    --
    Cost free eBook I read (by iBook/Kobo/Amazon/ObookO/Gutenberg etc.): "The Green Odyssey" by Philip Jose Farmer.
  26. Hylandr the highlander? by Hognoxious · · Score: 2

    An English archaeologist is digging and finds some copper fragments. He concludes that the ancient Britons were very advanced for their time because they had a telephone system.

    A French archaeologist is digging and finds some bits of glass. He concludes that the Gauls were even more advanced because they had fibre-optics.

    A Scottish archaeologist is digging and finds nothing at all. He concludes that the Picts were the most advanced of all, as they all had satellite phones.

    --
    Confucius say, "Find worm in apple - bad. Find half a worm - worse."
  27. Amazon rainforest by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I guess Amazon has too much money if they can afford their own rainforest

  28. Ummm by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Stonehenge == hanging/suspended stone

    But, there are no stones at this site.

    So, how is it like Stonehenge?

    1. Re:Ummm by RockDoctor · · Score: 1

      Stonehenge == hanging/suspended stone

      This is wrong.

      "henge" = circular earthworks.

      Stonehenge = circular earthworks with stones.

      Later, when the distinction between defensive earthworks and non-defensive ones was recognised, the defensive ones were called "hill forts" (because they were mostly sited on the tops of hills) while the harder-to-understand non-defensive structures which were not on hills were called "henges".

      --
      Birds are not dinosaur descendants;birds are dinosaurs, for all useful meanings of "birds", "are" and "dinosaurs"
  29. Re: Knowledge about the age of the rainforest is k by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    The one who wrote it, wrote for money. The one who believes it does so because they already are an idiot. I have to go search for big foot now.

  30. That's not really surprising, because... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Stonehenge, and similar structures, are temples. A worshiper would walk around the circles, reciting and/or performing rituals, accepting truths, and making promises, typically related to the origin of Earth/their society, then moving inwards, progressing toward the center ("heaven"), where they could commune with/receive promises from god(s). Thus it is a symbolic representation of the universe. By traveling through the temple you traverse various levels of existence, and thereby overcome all/the universe/life, and can now see as God sees. That is the general concept anyway, as far as the believers go. You see this from ancient Buddhist/Hindu stupas up to native Americans dancing in circles around a sacred fire, to (it appears) Mormon temples today. You can see a fairly accurate example at Epcot in Disneyworld (China, and possible, Mexico, too. It's a constant in almost all religions (notably excepting Protestantism).

  31. From the year "zero"? No such year... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    The article says, "The earthworks, known by archaeologists as 'geoglyphs' probably date from around the year zero." Someone doesn't know that the year count goes from 1 B.C.E. to 1 C.E., there was never a year 0.

  32. Re:Knowledge about the age of the rainforest is kn by HornWumpus · · Score: 1

    The biggest idiots are the ones who believe the Americas could support 40 million people at stone age technology.

    There were only a couple of tribes that had just started to make bronze. Comparing American natives to bronze age Europe is being generous.

    --
    John McAfee 'It was like that time I hired that Bangkok prostitute; to do my taxes, while I fucked my accountant'
  33. Re:Knowledge about the age of the rainforest is kn by angel'o'sphere · · Score: 1

    Erm, if you say "Americas" I guess you mean both continents.

    I don't think that 40M people on both in stone age times are implausible. After all "stone age", "bronze age" only means what tools they used. Or in other words, what technology they had.

    The americas are still in our days the least populated areas of the world, you could quadruple the population and a casual by passer would not see a difference. Keep in mind: more than 50% of the produced food in developed countries is thrown away.

    No idea what you mean with: Comparing American natives to bronze age Europe is being generous.
    I assume you don't know much about either "tribes" ;D

    Trick question: what was the biggest bronze age/iron age empire? Hint: unless you have a deep knowledge you never figure, and no, it is not on wikipedia :D Big as in spread over the landscape, not necessarily big as in max of population.

    --
    Cost free eBook I read (by iBook/Kobo/Amazon/ObookO/Gutenberg etc.): "The Green Odyssey" by Philip Jose Farmer.